bind_variable_to_node

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutation. The description adds the mapping by variable type but does not disclose potential error conditions (e.g., invalid variable-property combination) or required preconditions (node/variable existence).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides essential usage details. Every word adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple binding tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers main usage and type-specific guidance. It lacks discussion of error handling or success feedback, but these are not critical for a straightforward mutation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaning for the 'field' parameter by mapping it to variable types, which goes beyond the schema's enumerated list. 'nodeId' and 'variableId' are not further elaborated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action (bind) and resources (local variable to node property). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which handle page addition, variable modes, style application, renaming, cloning, and component creation, none of which perform binding.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on which property to use based on variable type (COLOR, BOOLEAN, FLOAT). This helps the agent select the correct field value. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or state exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.